Case law

United States v. Bene

6 Ct. Cust. 523 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 28, 1916

In support of the board’s decision the importers contend that the iron drums under consideration are of the same class and character as those involved in United States v. Garramone ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 30 ; T. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore reversed.

In re Ferenci

68 F.2d 737 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 26, 1934

The-doing of this is now a matter of every day practice in the issuance of patents, and in the case of Steinmetz v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Holbrook v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 263 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 15, 1911

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the collector's assessment, the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, upon the evidence taken before the board,, affirmed its decision, and the cases are hero on appeal … In the case of United States v. Reibe, heard at the June session, supra, p. 19 (T.

United States v. Stone

13 Ct. Cust. 233 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1925

[Italics ours.] * * * * * * * Benjamin V. … In the case of Esposito et al. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 334 , T.

In re Pilling

44 F.2d 878 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1930

Co. v. Saranac Elec. Light Co., 108 Fed. 221, 227 ; Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Elliott-Fisher Co., 165 Fed. 927, 930 ; Parker Bust Proof Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 6 F. (2d) 649, 654; In Re Crowell, 17 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Von Bremen v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 407 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1924

The collector applied the provision in paragraph 779 and the Board of General Appraisers sustained his action. … That if not they may be regarded as vegetables is settled so far as we are concerned by our decision in Austin, Nichols & Co. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls. 9 ; T.

Kenton v. Crane

120 F.2d 380 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1941

Hall v. Genzo Shimadzu, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1288, 59 F. (2d) 225; In re Buttolph, 22 C. C. P. A. … Braren v. George Horner, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 971, 47 F. (2d) 358; In re Beplate et al., 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1232,77 F. (2d) 506; Deutsch et al. v. Ball, 22 C. C. P. A.

Application of Renato Rogerio Carreira Reynaud

331 F.2d 625 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 14, 1964

Based on such an analysis of the prior art, v/e are then required by section 103 to determine whether appellant’s claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time he made his invention. … We think it would have been obvious, and we therefore affirm the decision of the board. Affirmed.

Application of Park

181 F.2d 255 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1950

Grelle v. City of Eugene, 9 Cir., 1915, 221 F. 68 . … Therefore, the decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Reversed.

In re Sawyer Electrical Manufacturing Co.

144 F.2d 893 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1944

The American Tobacco Co. v. Wix, supra; Thaddeus Davids Company v. Davids Manufacturing Company, 233 U. S. 461 ; Brown Chemical Company v. Meyer, 139 U. S. 540 ; Howe Scale Company v. Wyckoff, Seamans Benedict, 198 U. … See al§o The American Tobacco Co., the Brown-Chemical Comp any, and the Howe Scale Gomfany cases, all sufra. The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed.

Christian v. Muller

104 F.2d 361 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1939

Woelm v. Hasselquist, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 806, 62 F. (2d) 367. … There being no other issue involved in the appeal before us, the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Hansen

154 F.2d 684 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1946

In the Sterling case, supra, we made reference to the case of Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Pope, 210 Fed. 443 , and to our discussion of it in the case of In re McKee, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1018, 64 F. (2d) 379, 17 U. … The decision of the board is reversed.

In re Aslanian

590 F.2d 911 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1979

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals (board) affirming the rejection of claims 5, 7 and 8 in the application of Jerry L. … White Co. v. Morton E.

Hobe Button Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 341 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1924

The board sustained the protest. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. Schrock

5 Ct. Cust. 444 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 27, 1914

See also Strakosh v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 360, 361 ; T. D. 31453). … In accordance with the views above expressed the decision of the board is affirmed.

Application of Beach

152 F.2d 981 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1946

Mergenthaler v. Scudder, 11 App.D.C. 264 , 1897 C.D. 724; Townsend v. Smith, 36 F.2d 292 , 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, 647. … Ex parte Kerr, 1884 C.D. 27; Pupin v. Hutin et al., 1902 C.D. 269.

In re Waldbaum

457 F.2d 997 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 20, 1972

Gottschalk v. … The board’s decison on petition for reconsideration discussed below was rendered prior to our decision on. rehearing in Prater.

Graser-Rothe v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 142 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1916

The importer contends that the merchandise is identical with that considered by this court in United States v. Winter & Smillie ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 522 ; T. D. 33939). … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. G. Gennert, Inc.

22 C.C.P.A. 374 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 13, 1934

However, we ' deem this to be unnecessary, in view of the statement of Judge Brown during the course of the trial. … Meyer & Lange v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 15 , T. D. 39892.

In re DeJarlais

233 F.2d 323 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 15, 1956

Chemicals Co. v. … Moist Cold Refrigerator Co. v. Lou Johnson Co., 217 F. 2d 39 , 103 USPQ 410 ; Riley v. Broadway Hale Stores, 217 F. 2d 530 , 103 USPQ 414 .